Historicity of the BOM - Page 4 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Iluvatar · 01-02-2006, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

Before flogging me for putting science before faith, keep in mind that historically speaking, when science and religion have locked horns, science has almost always emerged the victor.

Is it possible to believe in the Church without believing many of the claims made by the Church? I think it is. Personally, I don't believe that the BoM is authentic, nor do I believe that Joseph Smith ever spoke with God or was ever visited by angels; I also don't believe that modern prophets speak with God. I do, however, believe in the morals taught by the Church, and I believe that the Church is a source for good in the lives of many. If the Church helps you live a happier life and if it gives you hope, then it works. If it works, then it doesn't really matter whether it authentic.

I'm about where you are. I've avoided very nearly every major pitfall in life by adhering to the moral precepts of the gospel, so, I guess you could say I have a testimony of those. However, I find it very difficult to believe in most of the rest of it...to the degree that I doubt the existence of a personal God.

The crappy thing is, I'm not sure the church works for me anymore. If I can't believe the majority of it's tenants (JS, BOM, modern prophecy. etc.), then why should I continue to shell out a full tithe? If the BOM isn't authentic, and the prophet doesn't really speak to God, then it becomes the biggest scam the world has ever known! Do I stick with it to make my wife happy? How have you dealt with it?

Iluvatar · 01-02-2006, 07:51 AM

All-American Wrote:

"There's nothing wrong with the Lamanites not being the "primary" ancestors of the American Indians, if by "primary" you mean that over 50% of their ancestry is of Lehite origin. But there's nothing prohibiting traces of the blood of Lehi from spreading the face of the western hemisphere"

Read the introduction to the BOM, it makes it clear that the Lamanites were/are the "primary" ancestors of the american indians. I guess one could disregard the introduction, but, if we can't believe the first presidency of our church do get these things right, then what's the point?

non sequitur · 01-02-2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

Do I stick with it to make my wife happy? How have you dealt with it?

I participate on the fringe. My wife and children and entire extended family are all extremely active and I go to Church a couple of times a year. We have daily family prayer and regular FHE. The Church makes them happy, so I encourage them and support them. My wife understands that I'm not going to go to Church just to make her happy. She understands that faith is a personal thing and you can't fake it just make someone else happy. In the immortal words of Huck Finn, "You can't pray a lie."

Indy Coug · 01-02-2006, 04:01 PM

It's my firm conviction God didn't want physical evidences of the Book of Mormon to be easily found. A testimony of the Book of Mormon founded on anything other than a spiritual witness received through diligent study and prayer isn't going to be of any worth to anyone anyway.

If one's faith is insufficient to receive such a witness or, if one has received such a witness, and then looks for some sort of external validation/confirmation of that witness, they aren't going to be able to "do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them".

tooblue · 01-02-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

Read the introduction to the BOM, it makes it clear that the Lamanites were/are the "primary" ancestors of the american indians. I guess one could disregard the introduction, but, if we can't believe the first presidency of our church do get these things right, then what's the point?

Your contention is predicated upon one point, one word that is removed from context and portrayed as the whole truth of the entire introduction of the Book of Mormon. Later in that very introduction, you subtly suggest is a lie, the introduction admonishes everyone “to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then ask, the eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the Power of the Holy Ghost.”

I have read the Book of Mormon and I know that it is true, that Joseph Smith was a Prophet and that he translated it by the power of God. I am certain it is what it is purported to be, a second testimony of Jesus Christ, a history of ancient peoples and their dealings with God and a warning for our times, In the name of Jesus Christ Amen.

Illuvator you have no other purpose here on this board other than to stir up the hearts of those that would discuss matters of religion honestly. I do not believe your stories of dealings with your Bishop or your wife. You have already spoken in half-truths concerning history and the church, and now the Book of Mormon. Nothing you post further will ever be considered truthful.

MikeWaters · 01-02-2006, 05:04 PM

Iluvatar is like the apocrypha of CG. There's some truth in there somewhere!

non sequitur · 01-02-2006, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooblue

Illuvator you have no other purpose here on this board other than to stir up the hearts of those that would discuss matters of religion honestly. I do not believe your stories of dealings with your Bishop or your wife. You have already spoken in half-truths concerning history and the church, and now the Book of Mormon. Nothing you post further will ever be considered truthful.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean they are being dishonest. Why is it so inconceivable that someone could come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not authentic? I've read the BoM. I've prayed about it. I still don't believe it's true. Even though I don't believe the BoM is authentic, I still respect those that do that do believe it. I don't accuse them of being dishonest or of speaking in half truths. People believe what they believe. Not believing in the BoM does not constitute a lack of moral strength or some sort of character flaw. It just means they have examined the evidence and come to a different conclusion.

Iluvatar · 01-02-2006, 08:35 PM

The great thing about life is that you can believe whatever you choose. I don't care wether you believe a single ruddy thing I say. Your certainly entitled to your opinion.

My contention that the introduction of the BOM is inacurate is indeed predicated on only one point! Fantastic claims should be backed by equally fantastic evidence. You only have to be wrong on one count to be completely wrong! If you don't agree that it's troubling not to be able to take literally the words of those that we have sustained as prophets seers and revelators, then this discussion really is pointless.

As for your contention that my only purpose on this board is to stir up people who would otherwise be discussing religion honestly? That's clearly a matter of opinion. I don't see how bringing up topics that make you a little uncomfortable makes me dishonest. You basically called me a liar when I stated that JS married other men's wives, lied to his own spouse (and the spouses of the women he took), and lied to the body of the church for decades about it. I think it was you that said that my knowledge of polygamy was incomplete, yadda, yadda, yadda. Turns out I was right though, wasn't I?

What, besides your obvious disbelief of my story concerning my wife and my bishop, do you feel I've lied about (I don't care to prove the validity of my experience to you)? Does not the intro to the book of mormon state in very clear language that the Lamanites are the "primary ancestors" of the American indians? How does pointing out that there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim make me dishonest? In what sense is this a half-truth?

While your testimony is truly beautiful, and I thank you for so generously sharing it, it means nothing to me. It is precisely the same thing said, in precisely the same inane language, by three year olds the world over. It's completely irrelevant in a fact based discussion. I could contend that the spirit told me that you were really a red salamander, but it wouldn't make it true.

I'm sorry if I make these discussions here a little less like primary than you would like them to be. I do often play devil's advocate in these discussions because I get frustrated at the total lack of knowledge that the average LDS person has about the true history of the church. If it's any consolation, I won't have time to post much anymore, now that the new year has begun.

Who hell are you to state that "nothing I ever post here will ever be considered truthful"? Just because you say it doesn't make it so, you arrogant, ignorant prat!

Archaea · 01-02-2006, 08:56 PM

"principal" ancestors of the American Indians being a problem?

"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

First, it was written as a friendly summary of the purpose of the book and its contents, not as part of the translation.

Second, it is true and FARMS shows, that there were two schools of thought surrounding the Church whether it was an isolatated group or large group on this hemisphere.

Third, rhetorically, it still works. There were the group that believed, small group and the group that didn't believe, large group, the ancestors to the American Indians. If the Nephites merged with larger groups but their DNA did not predominate, then the statement still works.

Jeff Lebowski · 01-02-2006, 09:07 PM

Iluvator,

I think tooblue has been over the top in his reaction to your posts. Rest assured that there are many here that respect your opinion. It always pains me to see folks become angry at the church once they start to doubt. It is even more painful when they are shown less than brotherly love from fellow members.

Unfortunately, it appears from the tone of your posts that you are reacting to your doubts with a fair amount of anger and bitterness. For the sake of your wife and your own well-being, I hope you can get some peace. I suggest you check out the following book:

"For those who wonder" by D.J. Burton
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096...books&v=glance

It has some excellent pointers for how to deal with the church once you lose your faith. Don't worry, it is not an apologist book, nor does it try to make you change your mind. It is written by a self-avowed skeptic and it has some excellent advice.

A couple more points. You said:

"It is precisely the same thing said, in precisely the same inane language, by three year olds the world over. It's completely irrelevant in a fact based discussion."

"I'm sorry if I make these discussions here a little less like primary than you would like them to be."

I definitely agree that your opinion is valid and you have some very real concerns. I would also suggest that these particular comments don't really show much respect for another's viewpoint. It is a two way street, my friend. You are indeed correct that much of the church membership is ignorant about LDS history. However, that does not necessarily negate or demean any spiritual experiences they may have had.

Personally, I have had plenty of doubts in my lifetime, many of them still unresolved. At the same time, I have had quite a few overwhelming spiritual experiences. At the end of the day, each of us has to make our decision on how to respond to our own set of experiences.

Finally, you discussed the issue of the intro to the BOM stating that the lamanites are the "primary" ancestors of the native americans. The vast majority of BOM scholars have long since abandoned that notion. If you are going to argue from a point that the first presidency should be completely infallible in order for the church to have any worth or meaning, then you have set an unrealistic and unjustified standard, IMO. You have implied on this board that it is foolish to think that our church leaders are perfect. And then you turn around and insist that we must accept every word of the intro to the BOM. Seems inconsistent to me.

Anyway, best of luck brother. I for one hope you can come to some peace. If your faith is gone, then I hope you can find a happy co-existence with others still in the faith, much like Non Sequitur has done.

01-02-2006, 07:51 AM	#32
Iluvatar Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 52	All-American Wrote: "There's nothing wrong with the Lamanites not being the "primary" ancestors of the American Indians, if by "primary" you mean that over 50% of their ancestry is of Lehite origin. But there's nothing prohibiting traces of the blood of Lehi from spreading the face of the western hemisphere" Read the introduction to the BOM, it makes it clear that the Lamanites were/are the "primary" ancestors of the american indians. I guess one could disregard the introduction, but, if we can't believe the first presidency of our church do get these things right, then what's the point? __________________ \"What we do in life echoes in eternity\"

01-02-2006, 08:35 PM	#38
Iluvatar Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 52	Yeah, yeah, you've said that already TooBlue... The great thing about life is that you can believe whatever you choose. I don't care wether you believe a single ruddy thing I say. Your certainly entitled to your opinion. My contention that the introduction of the BOM is inacurate is indeed predicated on only one point! Fantastic claims should be backed by equally fantastic evidence. You only have to be wrong on one count to be completely wrong! If you don't agree that it's troubling not to be able to take literally the words of those that we have sustained as prophets seers and revelators, then this discussion really is pointless. As for your contention that my only purpose on this board is to stir up people who would otherwise be discussing religion honestly? That's clearly a matter of opinion. I don't see how bringing up topics that make you a little uncomfortable makes me dishonest. You basically called me a liar when I stated that JS married other men's wives, lied to his own spouse (and the spouses of the women he took), and lied to the body of the church for decades about it. I think it was you that said that my knowledge of polygamy was incomplete, yadda, yadda, yadda. Turns out I was right though, wasn't I? What, besides your obvious disbelief of my story concerning my wife and my bishop, do you feel I've lied about (I don't care to prove the validity of my experience to you)? Does not the intro to the book of mormon state in very clear language that the Lamanites are the "primary ancestors" of the American indians? How does pointing out that there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim make me dishonest? In what sense is this a half-truth? While your testimony is truly beautiful, and I thank you for so generously sharing it, it means nothing to me. It is precisely the same thing said, in precisely the same inane language, by three year olds the world over. It's completely irrelevant in a fact based discussion. I could contend that the spirit told me that you were really a red salamander, but it wouldn't make it true. I'm sorry if I make these discussions here a little less like primary than you would like them to be. I do often play devil's advocate in these discussions because I get frustrated at the total lack of knowledge that the average LDS person has about the true history of the church. If it's any consolation, I won't have time to post much anymore, now that the new year has begun. Who hell are you to state that "nothing I ever post here will ever be considered truthful"? Just because you say it doesn't make it so, you arrogant, ignorant prat! __________________ \"What we do in life echoes in eternity\"

01-02-2006, 08:56 PM	#39
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	"principal" ancestors of the American Indians being a problem? "The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel. The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." First, it was written as a friendly summary of the purpose of the book and its contents, not as part of the translation. Second, it is true and FARMS shows, that there were two schools of thought surrounding the Church whether it was an isolatated group or large group on this hemisphere. Third, rhetorically, it still works. There were the group that believed, small group and the group that didn't believe, large group, the ancestors to the American Indians. If the Nephites merged with larger groups but their DNA did not predominate, then the statement still works. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

01-02-2006, 04:01 PM	#34
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	It's my firm conviction God didn't want physical evidences of the Book of Mormon to be easily found. A testimony of the Book of Mormon founded on anything other than a spiritual witness received through diligent study and prayer isn't going to be of any worth to anyone anyway. If one's faith is insufficient to receive such a witness or, if one has received such a witness, and then looks for some sort of external validation/confirmation of that witness, they aren't going to be able to "do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them".

01-02-2006, 05:04 PM	#36
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Iluvatar is like the apocrypha of CG. There's some truth in there somewhere!

01-02-2006, 09:07 PM	#40
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	Iluvator, I think tooblue has been over the top in his reaction to your posts. Rest assured that there are many here that respect your opinion. It always pains me to see folks become angry at the church once they start to doubt. It is even more painful when they are shown less than brotherly love from fellow members. Unfortunately, it appears from the tone of your posts that you are reacting to your doubts with a fair amount of anger and bitterness. For the sake of your wife and your own well-being, I hope you can get some peace. I suggest you check out the following book: "For those who wonder" by D.J. Burton http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096...books&v=glance It has some excellent pointers for how to deal with the church once you lose your faith. Don't worry, it is not an apologist book, nor does it try to make you change your mind. It is written by a self-avowed skeptic and it has some excellent advice. A couple more points. You said: "It is precisely the same thing said, in precisely the same inane language, by three year olds the world over. It's completely irrelevant in a fact based discussion." "I'm sorry if I make these discussions here a little less like primary than you would like them to be." I definitely agree that your opinion is valid and you have some very real concerns. I would also suggest that these particular comments don't really show much respect for another's viewpoint. It is a two way street, my friend. You are indeed correct that much of the church membership is ignorant about LDS history. However, that does not necessarily negate or demean any spiritual experiences they may have had. Personally, I have had plenty of doubts in my lifetime, many of them still unresolved. At the same time, I have had quite a few overwhelming spiritual experiences. At the end of the day, each of us has to make our decision on how to respond to our own set of experiences. Finally, you discussed the issue of the intro to the BOM stating that the lamanites are the "primary" ancestors of the native americans. The vast majority of BOM scholars have long since abandoned that notion. If you are going to argue from a point that the first presidency should be completely infallible in order for the church to have any worth or meaning, then you have set an unrealistic and unjustified standard, IMO. You have implied on this board that it is foolish to think that our church leaders are perfect. And then you turn around and insist that we must accept every word of the intro to the BOM. Seems inconsistent to me. Anyway, best of luck brother. I for one hope you can come to some peace. If your faith is gone, then I hope you can find a happy co-existence with others still in the faith, much like Non Sequitur has done.